There is no state of consciousness in which object and subject are not indissolubly combined. There is no physical process which is not indissolubly bound up with the psychical modes of apprehending it. Every idea is either an image or a symbol--it has therefore objective reference, a material aspect. Every object is a synthesis of feelings--it has therefore subjective reference, a material aspect. Thus while all the evidence points to the identity of Object and Subject, there is ample evidence for the logical necessity of their ideal separation as Aspects. This I have explained as a case of the general principle which determines all distinctions--namely, the diversity in the modes of production of the products, which--subjectively--is diversity in the modes of apprehending them. The optico-tactical experiences are markedly different from the other experiences, as being more directly referred to the Not-Self which resists; and because these lend themselves to ideal constructions by means of images and symbols, it is these experiences into which we translate all the others when we come to explain them and assign their conditions. For--and this is the central position of our argument--all interpretation consists in translating one set of feelings in the terms of another set. We condense sets of feelings in abstract symbols; to _understand_ these we must reduce them to their concrete significates. They are signs; we must show what they are signs of. Now the symbols Object and Subject are the most abstract we can employ. Because they are universal, they represent what cannot in reality be divorced. We can, indeed, ideally separate ourselves from the Cosmos; in the same way we can ideally separate our inner Self or Soul from our outer Self or Body; and again our Soul from its sentient states, our Body from its physical changes. But not so in reality. The separation is a logical artifice, and a logical necessity for Science. The necessity will be obvious to any one who reflects how the ideal constructions of Science demand precision and integrity of terms. The problem of Automatism brings this very clearly into view. The question is, Can we translate all psychological phenomena in mechanical terms? If we _can_, we ought; because these terms have the immense advantage of being _exact_, dealing as they do with quantitative relations. But my belief is that we cannot--nay, that we cannot even translate them all into physiological terms. The distinction between quantitative and qualitative knowledge (p. 354) is a barrier against the mechanical interpretation. Physiology is a classificatory science, not a science of measurement. Nor can the laws of Mind be deduced from physiological processes, unless supplemented by and interpreted by psychical conditions individual and social. CHAPTER IV. CONSCIOUSNESS AND UNCONSCIOUSNESS.[211]